Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Ooooh errr missus (or should I say mr/ms/mx?), 'tis a Tuesday morning and I have not yet awarded my prestigious and internationally renowned Prats of The Week Award.

This week it goes to Brighton and Hove Council for wasting scarce time, effort and money on procrastinating over scrapping the titles "Mr, Mrs and Ms".

For why is the council considering this idea?

The proposal to scrap all titles from official council forms and paperwork
comes after transgender activists complained that the names forced people to
choose between genders.

The proposal has the backing of Brighton and Hove City Council’s deputy leader Phelim MacCafferty.

Seemingly a scrutiny panel (which looked into the lives of the transgender community in Brighton) is to put forward a number of recommendations,
including the scrapping of Mr and Mrs, to the council for approval in
December.

According to the Argus Coun MacCafferty, who chairs the panel, suggested calling people by their titles on official forms was “completely useless”.

“Trans people aren’t necessarily male or female and sometimes they don’t want to be defined by their gender.

Putting Mr and Mrs on a form is completely useless. This is an issue
that concerns most institutions from banks to mobile phone companies.

Monday, October 29, 2012

Oh dear, even a hardened cynic such as myself was a tad surprised/gobsmacked by a recent piece of Nanny health and safety nonsense concerning magazines in a dentist's waiting room.

For reasons best known to Nanny, one of her NHS infection control workers recently advised Monica Symes, a dentist in Lyme Regis, to get rid of old magazines from her waiting room because they posed an infection risk.

For good measure the Nanny clone also said that the Blu-Tack being used to stick posters to the walls also posed a health risk.

I appreciate that people are nervous when visiting the dentist (I myself have to consume a bucketful of vodka before going anywhere near one), but I doubt very much that people start to lick the magazines of chew on Blu-Tack whilst waiting.

Unsurprisingly, since the media furore erupted over this nonsense, Nanny's NHS regulator has denied any such health and safety rule exists!

Thursday, October 25, 2012

As Halloween (that great American marketing gimmick) rapidly approaches, and kids force their parents to spend vast sums of money of cheap shite in order that they can then go door to door begging and demanding sweeties etc with menaces, I am indebted to a loyal reader who advised me that Nanny has banned pointy things at a Halloween party.

It seems that, according to the Mail, Halloween party organisers (and "community leaders" - a phrase I really loath) banned children aged five and under from bringing sharp plastic props, including toy broomsticks and scythes, to a "spooky disco" at a primary school in Treuddyn, North Wales.

The ban was to save them hurting themselves, or getting upset if they lost the articles.

All very well, but the kids had to be accompanied by their parents.

Anyhoo, that aside I would point out that Halloween was barely noted/celebrated in the UK when I was a kid.

Now, as an adult, I have to unplug my door bell in order to get through the evening!

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

However, even I a very cynical individual was gobsmacked when I read about Canterbury council's attempt to screw their paymasters (their voters) out of even more money by slapping a pedestrian tax on them.

Yes, you did read that correctly, a pedestrian tax!

Seemingly the Tory run council tried to charge the residents of 14 houses in Whitstable £16 for the right to walk across some land (aka Bison's car park) at the back of their houses (bought by the council in 1995 via compulsory purchase).

The council tried this little scam on when it sent letters to the residents asking for £122 per annum for vehicular access to the rear of their houses.

Unsurprisingly the residents told the council to fuck off, and a firestorm of negative publicity engulfed the council.

Can you guess what happened next children?

Yes, that's right, the toads in the council backed down and claimed that the were "reviewing the situation".

In other words they know they can't get away with such blatant theft, and are now looking for a "face saving" exit.

As loyal readers know, when the bright light of publicity is shone on Nanny's greedy little scams she backs off and pretends it was a misunderstanding.

Like all bullies Nanny needs to be stood up to, otherwise she will get away with murder.

My thanks to the same loyal reader who has sent me video II of his daughter this time also
being refused the purchase of a computer games magazine (why?), but being allowed to buy "20 Blood Chilling Murder Cases" (a real life
crime magazine).

Monday, October 22, 2012

Following on from last week's articles about WH Smith banning under 14s from buying magazines about hunting and shooting, and placing the magazines on the top shelf with the wank mags, I am advised by a loyal reader that Waitrose are doing the same.

Friday, October 19, 2012

I am gemused to see that Nanny's chums in Transport for London have had a major sense of humour failure over some prank fake notices/warnings (aka "Guerilla stickers") being posted around the Tube network eg:

- "No eye contact. Penalty £200"
- "We apologise for any incontinence caused during these engineering works."
- "Peak hours may necessitate you let other people sit on your lap."

They are amusing and clearly take the edge off the "joy" of traveling by Tube. Unfortunately Nanny regards them as nothing more than vandalism. As per the BBC British Transport Police (BTP) warned:

"The costs of
graffiti are substantial for the railway industry in terms of repairs
and clean-up, and can leave permanent scars on the infrastructure."

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Here is a wee spot the difference competition (no prizes) for you to test your observational skills on.

Can you tell me the difference between the two objects in the picture above, and what each is used for?

Yes, that's right, the one on the left is a white stick used by the visually impaired, the one on the right is a Samurai sword used for killing people.

Now that wasn't too difficult was it?

Sadly some in the Lancashire police might have had some problems with it.

The Telegraph reports that Colin Farmer (a 61 year old visually impaired gentlemen) found himself tasered and handcuffed whilst on his way to meet friends for a drink
in his local pub in Chorley.

For why?

Police had earlier been dispatched after reports of a man roaming around
Chorley town centre in Lancs armed with a sword, and a patrolman spotted Mr Farmer walking down the street using his
white stick to get around and mistook it for a samurai sword.

Mr Farmer said:

"The whole thing was like being trapped in a nightmare.

I didn't
even know the police were there. I heard this man shouting. I thought they
were shouting at some people.

I certainly didn't know they were police - and I certainly didn't know
they were shouting at me.

I thought I was going to be attacked by some hooligans. The next thing
they fired a Taser at me, though I didn't know it was a taser at the time.

I just felt this thump in my back. As soon as the taser hit me I hit the
ground.

I hit my head on the floor, then this policeman came around. I said 'I'm
blind, I'm blind. I'm blind'.

This policeman knelt on me and dragged my arms round my back and
handcuffed me so tight I've had bruises since.

I said 'you're hurting me, I'm blind' - and there's no way he could not
have seen my stick on the floor.

I walk at a snail's pace. They could have walked past me, driven past me
in the van, or said drop your weapon.

It's a sad excuse. They wouldn't even stop when I said I'm blind. I was
absolutely terrified. I thought any second I'm going to have another stroke
and this one will kill me."

Chief Supt Stuart Williams, of Chorley Police said:

"We have launched an urgent investigation to understand what lessons can
be learned and the matter has also been referred to the Independent Police
Complaints Commission."

Mistakes of course do happen, but this seems to be one hell of a snafu!

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

My thanks to a loyal reader who, following on from yesterday's story about WH Smith refusing to sell shooting magazines to under 14's, sent me a link to the above video of Smith's enforcing their rule by refusing to sell a shooting magazine to his 9 year old daughter.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Gadzooks, it is Tuesday already, time to award another of my prestigious and internationally renowned "Prats of The Week" Awards.

This week it goes to WH Smith for kowtowing to Animal Aid, and banning under 14s from buying magazines about hunting and shooting.

According to the "logic" postulated by Animal Aid, magazines such as Shooting Times are pro violence, and "corrode" young minds.

WH Smith of course continues to sell books and magazines about war, which they are happy enough to sell to kids. These being the same kids who will sit through hours of violence shown on TV news and soap operas.

The irony is if WH Smith follows Animal Aid's wishes to the letter, it will not only ban under 14s from buying the magazines but place them on the top shelf by the porn.

As loyal readers know, Nanny is a somewhat cowardly individual; as and when the bright light of publicity and mockery is shone upon one of her daft ideas/petty rules, more often than not she backtracks and claims that it was a "misunderstanding".

I am gemused to see that Swedish Nanny behaves in exactly the same way.

Yesterday I wrote about a Swedish council banning Annica Eriksson (the school dinner lady in Falun) from cooking too well, because her food outshone the offerings of others at other schools.

Needless to say this ban prompted derision and mockery from a large number of people.

Can you guess what happened next children?

Yes, that's right, Swedish Nanny has unbanned the ban and claims that it was a "misunderstanding".

Snort!

The Local reports that at a meeting, held Monday afternoon, Ms Eriksson was told by the
nutrition project leader Katarina Lindberg that local authorities would
not stand in the way of her aspirations to offer pupils home-made bread
and fresh vegetables:

“Annica misunderstood us, of course she can bake her own bread.”

She noted that the whole thing was down to a "miscommunication":

"What we've said that the fruits and vegetables
should be chosen according to season; it's a matter of taking
environment and climate considerations into account."

ROFLOL!

Suffice to say Ms Eriksson doesn't believe a word of that nonsense, and knows full well that the council was forced to eat humble pie and serve a large helping of pork pie in their statement.

Lindberg acknowledged that her colleagues were aware of the negative publicity:

“We are all affected by the events and the media attention this received.
This is about children’s food, that is our future.”

Thursday, October 11, 2012

My thanks to a loyal reader who pointed me to a story regarding my old residence (1996-2000) of Sweden, wherein Swedish Nanny has got her knickers into a twist over the most excellent cooking of Annica Eriksson, a school dinner lady at a school in Falun.

The local council ("municipality") has banned her from cooking certain dishes.

For why?

They are too good!

Pupils at her school regularly dine on freshly baked
bread and an assortment of 15 vegetables.

Sounds good, yes?

So what is the problem?

Well you see folks Sweden practices (so it claims) "equality" (the price of a social democratic system), wherein everyone is meant to be equal and treated equally. The result of this being an unfortunate flaw in the Swedish psyche; namely that if a Swede sees another Swede doing rather well for him/herself, the green eyed monster raises its ugly head (ie jealousy).

The local Nanny council banned Ms Eriksson from cooking certain dishes, because Nanny knows that other schools in the area don't eat as well and deemed it "unfair".

Now in the real world competition often improves the quality of services or products that people receive. However, in Nanny's world it is easier to simply hold people back from doing their best; because Nanny doesn't want to (or can't) make the effort to improve.

Katarina Lindberg, head of the unit responsible for the
school diet scheme, told the local Falukuriren newspaper:

"A menu has been developed... It is about making a collective effort on
quality, to improve school meals overall and to try and ensure everyone
does the same." .

As you can see, the state is doing its best (as it always tries to do) to hold people back from improving their lives.

Ms Eriksson is not best pleased:

"It has been claimed that we have been spoiled and that it's about time we do as everyone else."

From now on the school's vegetable buffet will be halved in size, and
Ms Eriksson's handmade loafs will be replaced with store-bought bread.

Her traditional Easter and Christmas smörgåsbords may also be under threat!

As I have noted many times before, councils (wherever they are based) are the enemies of the people!

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

I am gemused to see that Nanny and her officers have been busy in Newquay during the halcyon days of summer (all two days of it), ensuring that the Cornish resort shed its reputation as a
haven for drunken revellers and stag parties.

How so?

Nanny has introduced a
zero-tolerance approach to "risque" fancy dress.

The result being that some visitors to Newquay have had "risque" costumes seized by police.

What is an example of "risque" costume?

A mankini!

Devon and
Cornwall Police Superintendent Julie Whitmarsh recently gave an interview (as per the Telegraph):

"We have had this consistency of seizing inappropriate items of clothing,
sending people home to get changed, and that has worked, it has made a real
difference, this 'no-nonsense attitude'.

Mankini is what we term 'offensive clothing', so we won't accept people
wearing them. They are just hideous.

Is it just me, but if you were living in Bath for example, or Bournemouth, is
that something you would wear to walk into town on a Saturday afternoon?

No."

For good measure, Nanny also banned fake penises (preferring, I assume, the real thing?); as per Super. Whitmarsh:

"They are just revolting, there is nothing pleasant about seeing anybody in a
mankini. We have had a real crackdown on the fake penises.

And people are getting that message. You look at the images you see of
Newquay now, 2009 is three years ago and we are in a very different place."

Tuesday, October 09, 2012

I was particularly ungemused to read about another council using a petty infringement of rules and regulations in order to raise some money by levying a fine.

In this particular case Cyril Falls was fined £150 by Down District Council for throwing an apple core out of his car into a hedge.

Mr Falls is of the view that it was OK to throw the apple core because it is
biodegradable. Unfortunately Nanny's enforcement officer, who was in the
car behind him, was not of the same view and took down Mr Falls's registration number.

The BBC note that Mr Falls was initially given a £50 fine, which he said he forgot to pay.

When he got a reminder about it, his solicitor thought they should contest it.

Sadly the judge upheld the council's case, and Mr Falls was fined £150 and made to pay the court's costs.

In a statement, Down District Council said:

"A fixed penalty notice was issued for an offence under The Litter Order.

The fixed penalty was not paid and council had no option but to prosecute for the original offence of depositing litter. "

Cough!

The council had every option, it simply chose to go for the most lucrative option ie the money!

Monday, October 08, 2012

As loyal readers know, Nanny and certain "research" institutes never cease to come up with spurious ways to waste time and money on research that provides humanity with conclusions/findings that are bugger all use to anyone.

Step forward the British Egg Council and Mindlab which, using "sophisticated" maths and data mining, recently concluded that there is a statistical relationship between a person's character, lifestyle
and social class and whether they like their eggs boiled, fried, scrambled
or as an omelette.

The Telegraph reports that poached egg eaters are
outgoing, listen to upbeat music and are happier, boiled egg consumers are
disorganised, fried egg fans have a high sex drive, scrambled egg
aficionados are guarded and omelette eaters are self-disciplined.

Seemingly the average poached egg-eater is likely to have two
children, and no more than one sibling and is more likely to be a woman than
a man.

Boiled egg-eaters had a tendency to be careless and impulsive.

Fried egg-eaters are most likely to be younger and male and most frequently
found among the skilled working classes.

Scrambled egg-eaters are more likely to be in managerial or
senior-level jobs and also to own their own home, and omelette eaters are
likely to have a tidy home.

Under normal circumstances we would expect Nanny to try to use these "findings" to manipulate/control us. However, as she loathes eggs, I suspect she is in rather a bind over what to do with them.

Personally I enjoy fried eggs (two or three at one sitting), yet I am neither "young" nor "skilled working class" (although I do work); so that rather puts the kibosh on the quality of that research then!

Wednesday, October 03, 2012

My thanks to a loyal reader who has sent me a link to a press release issued by the Isamabrd Community School, in response to the story about them requiring parents to be CRB checked if they wish to watch their kids play sports etc.

Apparently, it's all been a terrible misunderstanding over a "small story" (the school's phrase not mine)!

How did this "misunderstanding" come about?

It seems that the local paper was given "out-dated information regarding this issue".

Cough!

In other words there was a CRB check requirement, but the school withdrew it either before the article went to press or just after the article was published.

Oh, and by the way, what the fark is "enrichment time" when it is at home?

"In light of the recent press coverage regarding CRB checks on parents
wishing to watch their children play in sports fixtures we would like
to issue the following statement:

Parents are more than welcome to
attend to watch sports fixtures at Isambard Community School.

However,
there is no access to the sports pitches through the main school
building. Parents are requested to use the Tadpole Lane entrance where
there is ample parking. There have previously been issues with parents
and other visitors arriving at the Isambard Way entrance and being
annoyed to be asked to drive to Tadpole Lane. However, we are unable to
allow visitors access through the school during the normal school day,
which includes the enrichment time between 3:15pm and 6pm. We hope this
clarifies the school’s position.

We are very disappointed that the
Swindon Advertiser and other newspapers have made such a big issue out
of this small story whilst ignoring the outstanding examinations results
achieved in the summer (see here) and our contribution to the local community, for example, the annual Lantern Parade held in October (see below).

We
apologise for the fact that the Advertiser were given out-dated
information regarding this issue prior to the article going to press."

My thanks to a loyal reader who pointed me to the goings on at The Isambard Community School in Swindon, which has absorbed Nanny's hysteria about all adults being a threat to children hook line and sinker.

According to the Telegraph the school has banned parents from watching their children take part in sports
events, unless they pass a criminal records check.

In other words all adults are deemed guilty of being child predators unless they can prove otherwise!

Neil Park wanted to see his son George play rugby, but was banned from entering the school because he hadn't had a CRB check.

The message that this sort of nonsense sends kids is that adults cannot be trusted, and should be feared.

When I was a kid I was taught very simply not to talk to strangers or take sweets etc from them and, if in difficulty, I should ask for help from a policeman.

Sage advice which, aside from the lack of policemen these days, is still valid.

A child will not be abducted in public if it follows that simple guidance.

Regarding CRB checks, they simply "prove" that the person carrying a "clean" CRB is not registered on a database has having committed a crime; that of course doesn't mean that he/she hasn't committed or won't commit a crime.

Nanny is teaching children to fear all adults, that is not healthy and is in itself is a from of child abuse is it not?

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

I have observed that certain phrases trigger a raising of blood pressure amongst my loyal readers. One such phrase is "hi vis", as discussed yesterday in relation to binmen and council admin staff.

In the spirit of keeping the blood pressure up, I am going to repeat the phrase again today....hi vis!

For it seems ladies and gentlemen that Nanny is planning to do away with our "boys in blue", and replace them with the "boys in hi vis".

Police chiefs believe that hi vis (instead of blue) will make the police easier to spot on the streets (alongside binmen, road diggers, traffic wardens etc etc). Additionally Nanny believes that, if it is adopted across the
country, it will make for a more unified image.

The absurdly named “national high visibility jacket” will be tested first in
London.

Monday, October 01, 2012

What better time to award my prestigious, and internationally renowned, Prats of The Week Award?

This week, courtesy of a recommendation from a loyal reader, it goes to Wiltshire Council (aka to the locals as the "lavatory council").

For why?

Just read the following about the council's rules wrt our old "friend" hi vis jackets, and who should wear them.

A Wiltshire council admin employee had been assigned to a day's ride with the local dustbin men, presumably to observe life on the front line etc.

I understand that the lady in question was ordered to wear hi vis for her day out. Given that the binmen all wear them, this may not seem terribly surprising. However, even though she was meant to observe/experience a day in the life of the binmen she was not allowed to leave the cab at all during the day (due to health and safety etc etc).

Therefore, given that she was safely sitting inside the cab all day (not learning anything about what the binmen actually do) I have to ask why the hell was she required to wear a hi vis jacket?

Professional Networks

Google+ Badge

Latest Comments

Recent Tweets

Subscribe To Nanny Knows Best

"In Germany they came first for the Communists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.Then they came for the Jews,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for the trade unionists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.The they came for the Catholics,and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me,and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Martin Niemoeller

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible

reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."

Adolf Hitler

Visit "Nanny's Store" and buy from a stunning range of T-shirts, mugs, cards and other items; all showing the distinctive